Prabodh Kumar Tewari, New Delhi V. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 3698/DEL/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 109 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4093 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 7 month(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-02-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 21-06-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: RAJENDER HANDA
• Keywords: Search and seizure; Opportunity of being heard; Additional evidence; Set aside
• Section: 144

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH C NEW DLEHI BEFORE SHRI O.K. KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI K. NARASIMHA CHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NOS. 3698 TO 3704/DEL/2016 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2005-06 TO 2011-12 PRABODH KUMAR TEWARI, VS. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1 3, 6, SOUTHERN AVENUE, NEW DELHI. MAHARANI BAGH, NEW DELHI. PAN : AAGPT4272M ITA NOS. 3705 TO 3711 TO 3704/DEL/2016 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2005-06 TO 2011-12 MEENA TEWARI, VS. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-13, 6, SOUTHERN AVENUE, NEW DELHI. MAHARANI BAGH, NEW DELHI. PAN : AAGPT4204K (APPELLANTS) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANTS BY : SH. RAJENDER HANDA, CA RESPONDENT BY: MS. SUNITA SINGH, CIT/DR DATE OF HEARING: 15/02/2021 DATE OF ORDER : 15/02/2021 ORDER PER BENCH. CHALLENGING THE ORDERS OF LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-25, NEW DELHI [CIT(A)] DATED 21.03.2016 AND 14.03.2016 FOR 2 ASSESSMENT YEARS 2005-06 TO 2011-12, PRABODH KUMAR TEWARI AND MEENA TEWARI (THE ASSESSEES) FILED THESE APPEALS. 2. AT THE OUTSET, THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER PASSED THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS EX PARTE U/S. 144 OF T HE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (THE ACT FOR SHORT), WHEREAS LD. CIT(A) IN T HE FIRST APPEAL DECLINED TO ADMIT THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE CIRCUMSTANCES, NAMELY, THAT THE CBI RAID OCCURRED ON ASSESSEE ON 0 7.02.2012; THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS UNDER CBI JUDICIAL CUSTODY FROM 18.07. 2012 TO 15.10.2012; THAT THE ACCOUNTANT AND OTHER STAFF OF THE ASSESSEE WHO HAD KNOWLEDGE OF ALL THESE DOCUMENTS HAD LEFT WHILE THE ASSESSEE WAS IN JUDICIAL CUSTODY; THAT IN ABEYANCE OF THE STAFF, THE DOCUMENTS COULD NOT BE TRACED OUT TIMELY; THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS UNDER MENTAL AGONY AF TER GETTING RELEASED FROM THE CBI JUDICIAL CUSTODY BUT STILL TRIED TO FI LE THE DOCUMENT BUT THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT TAKE THE REPLY DATED 15.0 3.2012 ON RECORD; AND THAT THUS, THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PRODUCE THE EVIDE NCES BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER DUE TO ABOVE REASONS. 3. IN SO FAR AS MEENA TEWARI IS CONCERNED HER GRIEV ANCE IS THAT SHE DID NOT HAVE ANY KNOWLEDGE OF HER ACCOUNTS AND FINANCES , AS THE SAME WERE DEALT WITH BY HER HUSBAND AND SON. HER HUSBAND WAS UNDER CBI CUSTODY WHEREAS HER SON WAS ON DEATH BAD OWING TO CHRONIC A ND SERIOUS AILMENT, TO WHICH HE ULTIMATELY SUCCUMBED. THESE ARE THE CIR CUMSTANCES URGED BY BOTH THE ASSESSEES, WHO HAPPENED TO BE THE PARENTS OF ANAND TEWARI WHO DIED OF CHRONIC DISEASE. 4. IT IS BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE THAT THESE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED BY A CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIB UNAL IN THE CASES OF 3 REENA TEWARI (ITA NO. 3784 TO 3790/DEL/2016) FOR A. YRS. 2005-06 TO 2011- 12 AND ARADHANA TEWARI (ITA NO. 3782 & 3783/DEL/201 6) FOR A.YRS. 2010- 11 AND 2011-12. CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL , TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES INVOLVE D IN THIS MATTER, SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDERS OF THE CIT(A) AND REMANDE D THE ISSUE BACK TO THE FILE OF CIT(A) AFTER ALLOWING THE REQUEST OF TH E ASSESSEE TO RECEIVE THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE AND TO DECIDE THE ISSUE AFRESH ON MERITS AFTER AFFORDING AN OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE AND THE AS SESSING OFFICER OF BEING HEARD. THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, BEING SIM ILAR, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE SAME VIEW CAN REASONABL Y BE TAKEN IN THESE TWO SETS OF MATTERS ALSO WITH SIMILAR DIRECTIONS. 5. WITH THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER, WE ALLOW THE REQUE ST OF THE ASSESSEES UNDER RULE 46A(1)(B) OF THE INCOME-TAX RULES, SET A SIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDERS AND REMAND THE APPEALS TO THE FILE OF CIT(A) TO RECEIVE THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE AND TO DECIDE THE APPEALS ON ME RITS AFTER GIVING AN OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO BOTH THE ASSESSEES AN D THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEALS OF BOTH THE ASSESSEES ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 15 TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2021 IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE CONCLUSION OF HEARING OV ER VIRTUAL MODE. SD/- SD/- (O.P. KANT) (K. NARASIMHA CHARY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 15/02/2021